Skip to main content Skip to navigation


<?xml version="1.0"?>

<!DOCTYPE TEI.2 SYSTEM "base.dtd">




<title>Keywords in modern drama</title></titleStmt>

<publicationStmt><distributor>BASE and Oxford Text Archive</distributor>


<availability><p>The British Academic Spoken English (BASE) corpus was developed at the

Universities of Warwick and Reading, under the directorship of Hilary Nesi

(Centre for English Language Teacher Education, Warwick) and Paul Thompson

(Department of Applied Linguistics, Reading), with funding from BALEAP,

EURALEX, the British Academy and the Arts and Humanities Research Board. The

original recordings are held at the Universities of Warwick and Reading, and

at the Oxford Text Archive and may be consulted by bona fide researchers

upon written application to any of the holding bodies.

The BASE corpus is freely available to researchers who agree to the

following conditions:</p>

<p>1. The recordings and transcriptions should not be modified in any


<p>2. The recordings and transcriptions should be used for research purposes

only; they should not be reproduced in teaching materials</p>

<p>3. The recordings and transcriptions should not be reproduced in full for

a wider audience/readership, although researchers are free to quote short

passages of text (up to 200 running words from any given speech event)</p>

<p>4. The corpus developers should be informed of all presentations or

publications arising from analysis of the corpus</p><p>

Researchers should acknowledge their use of the corpus using the following

form of words:

The recordings and transcriptions used in this study come from the British

Academic Spoken English (BASE) corpus, which was developed at the

Universities of Warwick and Reading under the directorship of Hilary Nesi

(Warwick) and Paul Thompson (Reading). Corpus development was assisted by

funding from the Universities of Warwick and Reading, BALEAP, EURALEX, the

British Academy and the Arts and Humanities Research Board. </p></availability>




<recording dur="00:53:36" n="6822">


<respStmt><name>BASE team</name>



<langUsage><language id="en">English</language>

<language id="fr">French</language>



<person id="nm0075" role="main speaker" n="n" sex="m"><p>nm0075, main speaker, non-student, male</p></person>

<personGrp id="ss" role="audience" size="l"><p>ss, audience, large group </p></personGrp>

<personGrp id="sl" role="all" size="l"><p>sl, all, large group</p></personGrp>

<personGrp role="speakers" size="3"><p>number of speakers: 3</p></personGrp>





<item n="speechevent">Lecture</item>

<item n="acaddept">French</item>

<item n="acaddiv">ah</item>

<item n="partlevel">UG</item>

<item n="module">unknown</item>




<u who="nm0075"><kinesic desc="overhead projector is on showing covered transparency" iterated="n"/> # a very warm welcome to the # <pause dur="0.2"/> year one drama option <pause dur="1.5"/> nice to see so many faces <pause dur="0.6"/> quite surprised to see such a big group actually <pause dur="0.4"/> # my name is <gap reason="name" extent="2 words"/> and i work in the French department of the Modern Languages Unit here at the University of <gap reason="name" extent="1 word"/> <pause dur="0.2"/> and also at <gap reason="name" extent="1 word"/> University <pause dur="0.6"/> so it's a great pleasure to be here this morning <pause dur="0.2"/> to speak to you about # twentieth century drama <pause dur="9.4"/> i'd like to begin now by just giving you an idea of some of the # things i'm going to be talking about in this lecture <pause dur="0.6"/> and <pause dur="0.6"/> if we briefly refer to # <pause dur="0.5"/><kinesic desc="reveals covered part of transparency" iterated="n"/> the first schema which is on the on the board <pause dur="1.6"/> # there's no need to copy this down actually but <pause dur="0.4"/> if you notice # on this schema it's a fairly basic <pause dur="0.2"/> and fairly # <pause dur="1.4"/> # <pause dur="0.6"/> inaccurate view really of what a a theatrical text actually consists of <pause dur="0.3"/> # in the particular <trunc>th</trunc> schema that you have # <pause dur="0.8"/> we begin with # the author <pause dur="0.5"/> who actually writes the play <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> and <pause dur="0.3"/> this obviously in turn <pause dur="0.2"/> leads to the text <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> the characters within the

text <pause dur="0.4"/> # speak using language <pause dur="0.2"/> and that actually is received by the by the audience so it's a pretty sort of unilinear <pause dur="0.2"/> fairly # <pause dur="0.3"/> fairly sort of # uninteresting account of what actually happens in twentieth century plays <pause dur="1.1"/> now # there are some problems with this and one of the main problems actually is that # <pause dur="0.8"/> some of the words are very <pause dur="0.9"/> <event desc="students enter room" iterated="n" n="ss"/> okay can can you hurry up and sit down as soon as possible please <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="0.8"/> some of the words are <pause dur="0.3"/> quite overused and not very accurate in terms of # what actually happens in a play <pause dur="0.7"/> for example <pause dur="0.2"/> looking at the author <pause dur="1.0"/> who actually <pause dur="0.4"/> who actually writes the play <pause dur="0.6"/> # is it the author <pause dur="0.2"/> or is it the director <pause dur="0.8"/> so <pause dur="0.3"/> we have a problem of authorship <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> and # we don't really know who actually <trunc>r</trunc> is responsible for the play as we as we see it <pause dur="0.9"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> secondly # <pause dur="1.3"/> how can the director if we assume that the author <pause dur="0.3"/> is replaced by the director <pause dur="0.2"/> how can the director remain faithful <pause dur="0.3"/> to the # <pause dur="0.3"/> the <pause dur="0.8"/> to the author's intentions <pause dur="0.2"/> that's

the second <pause dur="0.2"/> sort of big problem with this actually <pause dur="1.7"/> thirdly <pause dur="0.4"/> is the problematic status of language <pause dur="0.4"/> so one of the big problems there <pause dur="0.2"/> is that # <pause dur="0.3"/> verbal language <pause dur="0.2"/> or words are one way of conveying meaning in a play <pause dur="0.5"/> but <pause dur="0.7"/> as you will know from your own experiences of twentieth century plays <pause dur="0.2"/> there are many other ways of # <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> <trunc>pr</trunc> producing communication <pause dur="0.2"/> which don't actually depend on language <pause dur="0.3"/> so you have for example mime gesture <pause dur="0.8"/> # stage effects that kind of thing <pause dur="0.4"/> so <trunc>t</trunc> to view to view verbal language <pause dur="0.2"/> as a a sole means of communication in a play <pause dur="0.5"/> is quite inaccurate <pause dur="0.2"/> in the sense that # <pause dur="0.2"/> directors and playwrights will actually come <trunc>ac</trunc> come across many other ways of # <pause dur="0.2"/> dealing with # <pause dur="0.2"/> communication <pause dur="1.4"/> finally <pause dur="0.2"/> and perhaps the most problematic area of this schema <pause dur="0.2"/> is the <pause dur="0.3"/> # is the audience <pause dur="1.4"/> the problem with this diagram <pause dur="0.3"/> is that the audience is right at the bottom <pause dur="0.2"/> and is seen as a kind of passive <pause dur="0.4"/> and # <pause dur="0.4"/> very quiet sort of recipient of the the drama <pause dur="0.4"/> in other words # when you go and see a play <pause dur="0.4"/> # the

audience basically receives the action <pause dur="0.5"/> and presumably interprets it <pause dur="0.2"/> interprets the action in some way <pause dur="0.3"/> but <pause dur="0.6"/> # one of the problems with this is that it denies the very # active <pause dur="0.6"/> participatory role of the audience in the <pause dur="0.7"/> in the play itself <pause dur="1.2"/> so these are some # rather # major problems with twentieth century # drama <pause dur="0.2"/> if we look at it simply # in this very basic way <pause dur="0.8"/> # what i'd like to propose this morning <pause dur="0.3"/><kinesic desc="changes transparency" iterated="y" dur="15"/> and the aim of the lecture <pause dur="0.4"/> is # to try to revise <pause dur="0.3"/> this very # <pause dur="0.7"/> this fairly monotonous scheme <pause dur="0.3"/> # into a slightly more dynamic picture <pause dur="0.4"/> which could <pause dur="0.5"/> look something like this <pause dur="2.6"/> so you have a kind of reciprocal relationship <pause dur="0.2"/> between director and audience <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> the director is at the centre of the play <pause dur="0.6"/> so <pause dur="0.2"/> the director will basically decide # <pause dur="0.2"/> # how the play is actually seen by the audience <pause dur="0.7"/> nevertheless the audience will not receive the drama passively <pause dur="0.2"/> but will participate <pause dur="0.2"/> in the drama <pause dur="0.5"/> okay so # <pause dur="0.5"/> in in if you like the audience is challenged

to actually respond <pause dur="0.2"/> to what the director does <pause dur="2.1"/> at the sides of the diagram you have for example author and text <pause dur="1.0"/> i'm actually putting author and text at the side of the diagram <pause dur="0.2"/> because <pause dur="0.4"/> this morning i hope to show that # <pause dur="0.2"/> the author <pause dur="0.6"/> and the text <pause dur="0.3"/> of drama <pause dur="0.3"/> is actually secondary <pause dur="0.3"/> to # the director and the audience <pause dur="0.5"/> in other words the the kind of question that we should be asking <pause dur="0.2"/> is not <pause dur="0.5"/> what did Shakespeare intend to say <pause dur="0.2"/> or what did # Beckett intend to say <pause dur="0.4"/> when he wrote this this piece of this piece of drama <pause dur="0.4"/> rather <pause dur="0.2"/> what we ought to be looking at is how do we actually interpret <pause dur="0.3"/> what was actually said <pause dur="0.6"/> i think that's quite a big difference which <pause dur="0.2"/> at first is rather # disturbing <pause dur="0.3"/> but secondly <pause dur="0.2"/> # becomes quite a lot more challenging when we're looking at drama <pause dur="6.4"/> <kinesic desc="changes transparency" iterated="y" dur="4"/> so my plan for this morning <pause dur="0.2"/> can basically be divided into four parts <pause dur="0.6"/> in the first part <pause dur="0.2"/> i'd like to look in more detail <pause dur="0.2"/> at the rise of <pause dur="0.2"/> importance

of the spectator <pause dur="0.2"/> in twentieth century drama <pause dur="0.2"/> with particular reference to French drama of course <pause dur="1.7"/> in the second part <pause dur="0.2"/> i'd like to question the central <pause dur="0.4"/> <trunc>th</trunc> # area of language in <pause dur="0.6"/> # drama <pause dur="0.6"/> and i'd like to show that language means far more than just words <pause dur="0.3"/> there's another kind of dramatic language <pause dur="0.2"/> which actually has far more importance <pause dur="1.0"/> the third area i'd like to talk about <pause dur="0.2"/> is the rising importance of the drama <trunc>o</trunc> of the director in drama during the # <pause dur="0.3"/> the the prewar and post-war period <pause dur="0.6"/> # again i'm going to discuss this with particular reference to French drama <pause dur="0.3"/> although a lot of what i say will be <pause dur="0.2"/> # quite general also <pause dur="0.3"/> and would obviously apply to <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.6"/> # plays in other nationalities also <pause dur="0.5"/> finally <pause dur="0.2"/> i'm going to have a a very brief look at the word character <pause dur="0.6"/> # this will be the shortest of my sections <pause dur="0.4"/> # i haven't got a lot to say about it <pause dur="0.2"/> but i want to # try to challenge the way we look at character <pause dur="0.4"/> # sometimes we <trunc>s</trunc> we tend to see characters <pause dur="0.2"/> as # real people <pause dur="0.9"/> # real <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="0.6"/> characters sort of

behaving in a kind of a very sort of # <pause dur="0.2"/> a very true to life fashion <pause dur="0.3"/> i want to try and question that a little bit <pause dur="0.3"/> and hopefully to give you some ideas for when you study your your subsequent texts <pause dur="2.4"/> one particular <pause dur="0.2"/> one particular dramatist that i shall be referring to throughout the lecture <pause dur="0.2"/> is # Antonin Artaud <pause dur="1.4"/> Artaud # was born in Marseilles in <pause dur="0.2"/> nineteen # sorry in eighteen-ninety-six <pause dur="0.2"/> and # he's <pause dur="0.4"/> quite a marginal figure in twentieth century drama <pause dur="0.2"/> from some standpoints <pause dur="0.4"/> # there are not many books written about him <pause dur="0.4"/> but in fact <pause dur="0.4"/> # one of the books that i'm going to mention quite a lot this morning Le Théâtre et son Double <pause dur="0.6"/> the theatre and its double <pause dur="0.4"/> is actually an attempt to subvert <pause dur="0.2"/> and to revise the rules of drama <pause dur="0.5"/> and so it lends itself very well to the revision <pause dur="0.6"/> # that i'm actually going to be proposing this morning <pause dur="1.7"/> so i will devote probably # about # <pause dur="0.2"/> ten minutes or so <pause dur="0.4"/> to each stage of the lecture <pause dur="0.5"/> # giving you some information that you'll be able to note down <pause dur="0.6"/> #

finally <pause dur="0.4"/> i shall leave about five minutes before the end # to allow time for any questions which <pause dur="0.2"/> you may have <pause dur="4.1"/> is the structure of the lecture clear to you <pause dur="1.2"/> you're happy about how we're going from here <pause dur="6.6"/> so my first category then <pause dur="0.6"/> and <pause dur="0.2"/> by far the longest category that i i'm going to be talking about this morning <pause dur="0.3"/> # is the whole area of spectator and audience <pause dur="2.1"/> the twentieth century theatre <pause dur="0.2"/> could be described as a time when the spectator <pause dur="0.4"/> came into being <pause dur="0.3"/> as an active <pause dur="0.3"/> member <pause dur="0.3"/> of the dramatic production <pause dur="3.5"/> you may have noted # in previous studies that Aristotle <pause dur="0.4"/> in his Poetics <pause dur="0.7"/> # viewed <pause dur="0.4"/> the <pause dur="0.2"/> spectator very much in a kind of passive <pause dur="0.6"/> and fairly # <pause dur="0.3"/> # receptive role in drama <pause dur="1.0"/> of course Aristotle talked about things like <pause dur="0.2"/> catharsis <pause dur="0.8"/> # catharsis is the purging <pause dur="0.2"/> of emotions <pause dur="0.5"/> when you attend a play <pause dur="0.6"/> so that <pause dur="0.2"/> # by experiencing the full emotions of a dramatic text <pause dur="0.3"/> # the spectator <pause dur="0.2"/> will be able to kind of go home refreshed at the end of it <pause dur="0.4"/> and <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> # his or her life will be improved as a result <pause dur="0.4"/> so it

wouldn't be correct to say that # classical drama <pause dur="0.2"/> paid no attention at all to the spectator <pause dur="3.0"/> on the other hand <pause dur="0.5"/> in the twentieth century <pause dur="0.5"/> # almost all reactions to the classical theatre <pause dur="0.3"/> involve in some measure # <pause dur="0.2"/> the primary importance of the spectator <pause dur="0.3"/> in the creative <pause dur="0.3"/> dramatic process <pause dur="3.7"/> in French drama <pause dur="0.6"/> one of the strongest early reactions <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> to # <pause dur="0.2"/> the negative position of the audience came from Antonin Artaud <pause dur="3.8"/> for Artaud <pause dur="0.7"/> the theatre <pause dur="0.4"/> had become much too consumerist in nature <pause dur="1.0"/> and this idea # is # very strong in his writing <pause dur="2.1"/> his most famous work <pause dur="0.3"/> is <pause dur="0.3"/> Le Théâtre et son Double <pause dur="0.6"/> written in nineteen-thirty-eight <pause dur="1.8"/> this is a series of # <pause dur="0.3"/> published essays <pause dur="0.6"/> which criticize the <pause dur="0.5"/> stasis and the status quo <pause dur="0.3"/> of <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="0.5"/> of theatre at the time <pause dur="1.7"/> theatre should be challenged <pause dur="1.0"/> it should shake the audience <pause dur="0.3"/> with a series of imagined feelings <pause dur="1.2"/> disclosing # <pause dur="0.3"/> depths of the unconscious <pause dur="1.3"/> so what Artaud proposed <pause dur="0.2"/> instead of the <pause dur="0.2"/> the existing model which was # Aristotelian in nature <pause dur="0.2"/> what Artaud proposed <pause dur="0.2"/> was what

he called a a theatre of cruelty <pause dur="3.0"/> cruelty <pause dur="0.2"/> for Artaud <pause dur="0.5"/> could involve # <pause dur="0.6"/> violent or aggressive acts on the stage <pause dur="0.8"/> however <pause dur="0.3"/> it also involved <pause dur="0.2"/> challenging the conventions <pause dur="0.3"/> and the niceties of everyday existence <pause dur="0.9"/> and <pause dur="0.2"/> to allow the audience # to experience the thrill <pause dur="0.4"/> of <pause dur="0.3"/> # being alive <pause dur="0.2"/> the the the problem of of existence <pause dur="0.2"/> with all its sort of ups and downs <pause dur="0.2"/> and # this was what # Artaud felt <pause dur="0.2"/> # the spectator should be experiencing <pause dur="0.4"/> in <pause dur="0.5"/> # attending a play <pause dur="2.0"/> if you like # it's the kind of contradictory feelings # <pause dur="0.2"/> # you know the <trunc>f</trunc> feeling that something is sort of both # positive and negative but these things exist at the same time <pause dur="0.2"/> within oneself <pause dur="2.3"/> Artaud wrote an essay called # <pause dur="0.4"/> Le Théâtre et la Peste <pause dur="0.7"/> so # theatre and plague <pause dur="2.4"/> in this essay <pause dur="0.2"/> Artaud drew an analogy <pause dur="0.2"/> and a comparison <pause dur="0.2"/> between theatre and plague <pause dur="2.9"/> both these events <pause dur="0.2"/> Artaud thought <pause dur="0.5"/> should bring about the # <pause dur="0.2"/> the collapse <pause dur="0.2"/> of normal <pause dur="0.3"/> social hierarchy <pause dur="2.4"/> the condition of the plague victim <pause dur="1.0"/> # was reflected <pause dur="0.4"/> in <pause dur="0.3"/> the position of the actor on

stage <pause dur="0.8"/> but also <pause dur="0.4"/> in the audience who was watching <pause dur="1.9"/> if you like <pause dur="0.2"/> the audience was seen to be very much contaminated <pause dur="0.6"/> and infected <pause dur="0.6"/> by the action on stage <pause dur="0.5"/> not a nice feeling <pause dur="0.4"/> not a pleasant feeling <pause dur="0.5"/> but then again # <pause dur="0.2"/> theatre shouldn't be pleasant or nice <pause dur="0.2"/> theatre should be # challenging <pause dur="0.5"/> and should <trunc>exer</trunc> should sort of expose the horrible side of existence <pause dur="3.6"/> theatre is like an epidemic <pause dur="0.6"/> it sort of <pause dur="0.3"/> makes you # infected and then it's very difficult to become cured afterwards <pause dur="0.7"/> # so the disturbance <pause dur="0.2"/> and the # the problematic emotions that people experience continue long after <pause dur="0.2"/> the play is actually finished <pause dur="2.3"/> in the first quotation <pause dur="0.2"/> # which i'll read for you <pause dur="0.2"/> the # <pause dur="0.2"/> <trunc>th</trunc> this comes from Artaud's book <pause dur="0.2"/> and it actually # <pause dur="0.4"/> # gives voice to this connection between # theatre and plague <pause dur="0.6"/> <reading><distinct lang="fr">il y a dans le théâtre</distinct> <pause dur="0.3"/> <distinct lang="fr">comme dans la peste</distinct> <pause dur="0.4"/> <distinct lang="fr">quelque chose</distinct> <pause dur="0.3"/> <distinct lang="fr">à la fois de victorieux</distinct> <pause dur="0.4"/> <distinct lang="fr">et de vengeur</distinct> <pause dur="0.9"/> <distinct lang="fr">cet incendie spontané que la peste allume où elle passe</distinct> <pause dur="0.3"/> <distinct lang="fr">on sent très bien qu'il n'est autre chose</distinct> <pause dur="0.2"/>

<distinct lang="fr">qu'une immense</distinct> <pause dur="0.2"/> <distinct lang="fr">liquidation</distinct></reading> <pause dur="1.7"/> so strong language <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> the plague <pause dur="0.3"/> brings about <pause dur="0.2"/> <distinct lang="fr">une liquidation</distinct> <pause dur="0.3"/> a strong sort of liquidation <pause dur="0.2"/> a sort of dissolving <pause dur="0.4"/> of sort of everyday concepts of existence and their replacing <pause dur="0.2"/> with much stronger <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> # sort of views about life <pause dur="3.9"/> so important was the spectator to <trunc>an</trunc> Antonin Artaud <pause dur="0.3"/> that <pause dur="0.4"/> also in Le Théâtre et son Double <pause dur="0.6"/> he suggested <pause dur="0.5"/> an <trunc>i</trunc> an ideal theatre <pause dur="0.4"/> which actually # <pause dur="0.2"/> surrounded the audience <pause dur="0.8"/> # who were seated on <pause dur="0.2"/> pivotal stools <pause dur="0.2"/> so you had the audience actually <pause dur="0.2"/> # raised in the middle of the platform <pause dur="1.5"/> # and you had the action <pause dur="0.4"/> going on around it <pause dur="0.4"/> so if you like it was a complete reverse <pause dur="0.2"/> of the Shakespearean theatre <pause dur="0.4"/> where you had the actors <pause dur="0.2"/> # in the middle of the stage <pause dur="0.5"/> and the <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="0.5"/> # the audience sitting around it <pause dur="0.2"/> it was a complete subversion of that <pause dur="1.5"/> it may seem very impracticable <pause dur="0.4"/> but in fact <pause dur="0.4"/> this # this was actually done # <pause dur="0.2"/> to quite good effect in the Maison de la Culture <pause dur="0.6"/> # the Maison de la Culture is the equivalent of our repertory

theatre <pause dur="0.5"/> and in Grenoble <pause dur="0.4"/> this experience was actually tried <pause dur="0.7"/> and # <pause dur="0.2"/> in this particular building for a while at least <pause dur="0.2"/> the stage was encircled by the audience <pause dur="3.7"/> so <pause dur="0.2"/> Artaud # seems to go beyond # simple fascination <pause dur="0.2"/> with the show's magic <pause dur="1.1"/> so the theatre has to lose its kind of magical appeal <pause dur="0.2"/> as being a slice of life <pause dur="0.7"/> and <pause dur="0.2"/> the theatre needs to look towards <pause dur="0.7"/> its effect <pause dur="1.5"/> as # Artaud said # <pause dur="0.2"/> the aim of theatre was to reforge the links <pause dur="1.0"/> the chain of a rhythm <pause dur="0.2"/> when <trunc>aud</trunc> audiences saw their own real lives in a show <pause dur="1.5"/> so in other words # the audience's aim <pause dur="0.2"/> was to actually see # <pause dur="0.2"/> things that they were experiencing <pause dur="0.2"/> # sort of within the theatre <pause dur="1.1"/> far from being estranged by the action <pause dur="0.5"/> they needed to feel totally sucked in <pause dur="0.2"/> by what was actually going on <pause dur="1.9"/> in short then <pause dur="0.3"/> theatre <pause dur="0.3"/> for Artaud <pause dur="0.2"/> was a disquieting <pause dur="0.5"/> rather than a comforting experience <pause dur="9.9"/> i'd like to move on to my second category now <pause dur="0.2"/> which is all about language <pause dur="3.6"/> in the <pause dur="0.4"/> Western philosophical tradition <pause dur="0.8"/> # which governs most of the way in

which we think nowadays <pause dur="0.5"/> language <pause dur="0.3"/> is often <pause dur="0.2"/> is often seen to be # central <pause dur="0.7"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> to the way in which we communicate <pause dur="1.5"/> so everything # surrounds the centrality of language <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> this term is <pause dur="0.3"/> described as logocentrism <pause dur="2.2"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> logocentrism <pause dur="11.8"/> <kinesic desc="writes on transparency" iterated="y" dur="5"/> logocentrism <pause dur="0.2"/> the belief that the word or language <pause dur="0.5"/> # is the foundation <pause dur="0.3"/> of thought and experience <pause dur="3.0"/> however <pause dur="1.0"/> in recent times <pause dur="0.4"/> this concept of logocentrism <pause dur="0.2"/> the central aspect of the word <pause dur="0.5"/> has been # criticized <pause dur="0.8"/> notably by a philosopher called # Jacques Derrida <pause dur="1.4"/> <kinesic desc="writes on transparency" iterated="y" dur="5"/> some of you may have heard of <pause dur="5.9"/> for Derrida # <pause dur="0.7"/> meaning <pause dur="1.1"/> is not central # and based on language <pause dur="0.7"/> language is not sort of the central way of communicating <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> because meaning <pause dur="0.4"/> is not created entirely through language <pause dur="0.4"/> but the way in which we respond to text <pause dur="1.3"/> if you like # language produces thought <pause dur="0.5"/> rather than contains thought <pause dur="0.6"/> language isn't something which is

absolute <pause dur="0.6"/> but it's kind of relative # a lot depends on how we use it <pause dur="0.2"/> and how we're caught up with the flow of language <pause dur="2.1"/> but Artaud <pause dur="0.2"/> # coming back to our # <pause dur="0.2"/> our friend # <pause dur="0.2"/> who we're going to be talking about a lot this morning # <pause dur="0.2"/> for Artaud language <pause dur="0.3"/> has also been given too much importance in the theatre <pause dur="1.3"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> and there's a need says Artaud <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> to give # emphasis to other things <pause dur="0.2"/> apart from verbal language <pause dur="2.1"/> what kind of things does Artaud suggest <pause dur="0.2"/> in terms of language of the theatre <pause dur="1.2"/> well <pause dur="0.3"/> he wrote some manifestos <pause dur="0.3"/> which actually outline in quite a lot of detail <pause dur="0.2"/> the # <pause dur="0.5"/> the areas which he wants to see developed in the theatre <pause dur="1.2"/> some of these are as follows <pause dur="0.5"/> lighting <pause dur="2.1"/> he wants to see # <pause dur="0.2"/> what he describes as oscillating lights <pause dur="0.3"/> so lights which kind of switch on and off <pause dur="0.4"/> which create special effects <pause dur="1.1"/> musical instruments <pause dur="2.3"/> traditional costumes <pause dur="2.6"/> and accompanied with these <pause dur="0.4"/> # a kind of bareness of the theatre <pause dur="0.8"/> in other words # <pause dur="0.2"/> <trunc>theatri</trunc> theatrical decor <pause dur="0.2"/> shouldn't actually be <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="0.5"/> sort of beautiful

and elaborate <pause dur="0.2"/> on the other hand it should be simple <pause dur="0.3"/> so you might have sort of whitewashed walls <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> very plain decor # <pause dur="0.2"/> this particular lecture theatre springs to mind as a <pause dur="0.2"/> as an example of what Artaud might have intended <pause dur="0.7"/> okay # <pause dur="0.2"/> # a very sort of <pause dur="0.3"/> <trunc>l</trunc> # a very small amount of of of of decoration <pause dur="2.0"/> gestures <pause dur="1.2"/> gestures were also important <pause dur="0.6"/> it wasn't it didn't just matter what people said <pause dur="0.8"/> but it mattered what people did <pause dur="0.4"/> how did people move on stage <pause dur="0.7"/> and Artaud observed <pause dur="0.2"/> # the Balinese theatre <pause dur="0.8"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> Balinese theatre <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> so # the Balinese theatre <kinesic desc="writes on transparency" iterated="y" dur="3"/> i'll just spell that <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="3.0"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> in <pause dur="0.2"/> the nineteen-thirties <pause dur="0.2"/> and discovered that the way they moved <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> # was # quite <pause dur="0.6"/> odd <pause dur="0.3"/> in a way <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> they used quite sort of sharp jerky movements <pause dur="0.3"/> in what they were doing <pause dur="0.3"/> and Artaud <pause dur="0.2"/> thought this might actually be quite a nice thing to # <pause dur="0.2"/> integrate into the theatre <pause dur="3.2"/> and similarly at the same time # <pause dur="0.3"/> there's the avoidance of # <pause dur="0.2"/> of articulated language <pause dur="0.5"/> so all

these special effects <pause dur="0.2"/> have an equal place in theatre <pause dur="0.2"/> as well <pause dur="2.1"/> Artaud's prescriptions # <pause dur="0.2"/> gave rise to what might be described as total theatre <pause dur="3.7"/> total theatre means a theatre which actually <pause dur="0.2"/> incorporates <pause dur="0.4"/> sort of all different <pause dur="0.2"/> aspects of the production <pause dur="0.7"/> so <pause dur="0.2"/> # the kind of the primacy of language <pause dur="0.2"/> which is present maybe in texts like # <pause dur="0.2"/> Molière's plays or Racine's plays <pause dur="0.3"/> which are based around pretty much around language really <pause dur="0.4"/> although action is important too <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> all those things become important <pause dur="0.2"/> # when we're dealing with a twentieth century play <pause dur="3.1"/> one example in British # culture <pause dur="0.2"/> which is very interesting <pause dur="0.2"/> is # <pause dur="0.4"/> Peter Shaffer's play <pause dur="0.2"/> the The Royal Hunt of the Sun <pause dur="0.8"/> some of you may know it <pause dur="0.2"/> which deals with the # <pause dur="0.5"/> conquistadors # <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="1.2"/> # and their relationship to the Incan civilization <pause dur="0.6"/> now Peter Shaffer <pause dur="0.2"/> as Artaud <pause dur="0.6"/> # uses the idea of total theatre <pause dur="0.4"/> so what you get <pause dur="0.2"/> is a kind of amalgam <pause dur="0.4"/> of all different kinds of prescriptions <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> you get sort of musical instruments <pause dur="0.8"/> special effects <pause dur="0.2"/> very bare

stage <pause dur="1.2"/> there is language of course <pause dur="0.9"/> but <pause dur="0.2"/> there's a lot of gesture <pause dur="0.8"/> and <pause dur="0.2"/> i think if you watched a <pause dur="0.2"/> if you watched # <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> a sort of modern production of The Royal Hunt of the Sun <pause dur="0.2"/> i think you might actually see that # some of the prescriptions <pause dur="0.2"/> are pretty similar <pause dur="0.3"/> to what Artaud was saying in <pause dur="0.2"/> Le Théâtre et son Double <pause dur="1.7"/> it's important to bear in mind <pause dur="0.2"/> when we're talking about language <pause dur="0.4"/> it's important to bear in mind that <pause dur="0.2"/> not all <pause dur="0.3"/> directors <pause dur="0.3"/> and not all playwrights <pause dur="0.2"/> dealt with language in the same way <pause dur="0.4"/> i think Artaud is <pause dur="0.3"/> suggesting a kind of escape from <pause dur="0.5"/> the <pause dur="0.2"/> kind of control of language if you like <pause dur="0.6"/> however <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> other people do things quite differently <pause dur="0.2"/> so Ionesco <pause dur="0.4"/> who you're going to be studying later in the course <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> seems to break with # language <pause dur="0.6"/> # he uses language <pause dur="0.2"/> in a kind of absurd and # <pause dur="0.3"/> # mismatched way <pause dur="0.4"/> so <pause dur="0.2"/> # characters do communicate with each other <pause dur="0.2"/> through language <pause dur="0.5"/> but <pause dur="0.2"/> # in ways which surprise us <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> through their kind of very their very absurdity <pause dur="0.8"/> # <pause dur="1.7"/> Sartre who you'll also be studying <pause dur="0.2"/>

# <pause dur="0.3"/> i think # Sartre <pause dur="0.2"/> very much believes in the # in the importance of language <pause dur="0.4"/> but Sartre will # appropriate language for <pause dur="0.2"/> political effects <pause dur="0.4"/> as we know from our <pause dur="0.2"/> # immediate experience with Sartre <pause dur="0.2"/> he's a political dramatist as much as anything <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> conveying political messages <pause dur="0.3"/> therefore language needs to be important <pause dur="0.2"/> language is quite central <pause dur="0.5"/> so it wouldn't be correct to say that Artaud's # <pause dur="0.2"/> prescriptions for language <pause dur="0.2"/> are adopted by all the playwrights that you're actually going to be studying <pause dur="0.4"/> however <pause dur="0.2"/> it does cast a new light on what's happening in the <pause dur="0.2"/> in the theatre <pause dur="0.4"/> and <pause dur="0.2"/> # it places the # the theatre into # <pause dur="0.4"/> into into a very different perspective <pause dur="3.0"/> one of the criticisms <pause dur="0.2"/> i'll just deal with this before moving on <pause dur="0.2"/> one of the criticisms with # Artaud's idea that <pause dur="0.4"/> # verbal language <pause dur="0.2"/> that you could get away with verbal language <pause dur="0.9"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> is that # <pause dur="0.4"/> verbal language is always there in the background <pause dur="0.6"/> in a sense it's <trunc>actu</trunc> it's actually impossible to escape <trunc>u</trunc> from using language

altogether <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> i think people have tried it in the theatre <pause dur="0.2"/> but it's almost impossible to get away with that kind of # <pause dur="0.2"/> that kind of # <pause dur="0.3"/> thing <pause dur="0.2"/> so what's happening then really <pause dur="0.3"/> is that Artaud is proposing something <pause dur="0.4"/> here <pause dur="0.2"/> which can never be achieved entirely <pause dur="0.5"/> and so <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> in almost all plays <pause dur="0.3"/> even plays <pause dur="0.2"/> which # <pause dur="0.2"/> you could describe as belonging to the Theatre of the Absurd <pause dur="0.2"/> language is <pause dur="0.2"/> is always there in the background it doesn't always make sense <pause dur="0.5"/> but it is basically a problem <pause dur="1.7"/> before we move on # <pause dur="0.2"/> i'd like to <pause dur="0.2"/> make a transition by referring to the second quotation <pause dur="0.6"/> which <pause dur="0.2"/> i think # clarifies what Artaud's # views are about non-verbal language <pause dur="1.8"/> <reading><distinct lang="fr">ce langage objectif</distinct></reading> <pause dur="0.3"/> so he described # <pause dur="0.2"/> setting scenes # <pause dur="0.2"/> colours <pause dur="0.3"/> costumes and things as <distinct lang="fr">langage objectif</distinct> <pause dur="0.2"/> it's a kind of objective rather than subjective language <pause dur="0.3"/> <reading><distinct lang="fr">ce langage objectif</distinct> <pause dur="0.2"/> <distinct lang="fr">rend enfin</distinct> <pause dur="0.3"/> <distinct lang="fr">l'assujettissement</distinct></reading> <pause dur="0.5"/> the subordination <pause dur="0.3"/> okay <pause dur="0.2"/> <reading><distinct lang="fr">l'assujettissement</distinct> <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> <distinct lang="fr">intellectuel au langage</distinct> <pause dur="0.8"/> <distinct lang="fr">en donnant le sens d'une intellectualité nouvelle</distinct> <pause dur="0.4"/>

<distinct lang="fr">et plus profonde</distinct> <pause dur="1.1"/> <distinct lang="fr">qui se cache sous les gestes</distinct> <pause dur="0.3"/> <distinct lang="fr">et sous les signes élevés</distinct> <pause dur="0.4"/> <distinct lang="fr">à la dignité</distinct> <pause dur="0.2"/> <distinct lang="fr">d'exorcisme</distinct> <pause dur="0.2"/> <distinct lang="fr">particulier</distinct></reading> <pause dur="2.0"/> so the idea is to break the kind of subordination <pause dur="0.4"/> which <pause dur="0.2"/> other kind of stage effects have to language <pause dur="1.1"/> okay <pause dur="0.2"/> everything needs to be given the same degree of importance <pause dur="15.1"/> it will come as <pause dur="0.2"/> probably fairly little surprise <pause dur="0.2"/> to note that <pause dur="0.2"/> the director <pause dur="0.6"/> of the theatre <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> is not mentioned in Aristotle <pause dur="1.3"/> so the director <pause dur="0.2"/> is # a pretty new concept <pause dur="0.4"/> which <pause dur="0.2"/> came of age in the twentieth century <pause dur="2.1"/> it's important <pause dur="0.2"/> when we're studying plays <pause dur="0.2"/> not to forget about the director <pause dur="1.6"/> one of the characteristic features of twentieth century drama <pause dur="0.7"/> # is the debate about the # relative importance of playwrights and directors <pause dur="1.9"/> and the post-war drama period <pause dur="0.3"/> can be seen <pause dur="0.3"/> as # <pause dur="0.2"/> the a period in which we see the <pause dur="0.2"/> gradual eradication of the playwright <pause dur="0.8"/> and the rise to power <pause dur="0.4"/> of the theatre director <pause dur="2.3"/> somebody called Edward Gordon Craig <pause dur="0.7"/> so an early twentieth century dramatist <pause dur="0.3"/> Edward Gordon

Craig <pause dur="6.6"/> <kinesic desc="writes on transparency" iterated="y" dur="2"/> wrote a prophetic <pause dur="0.2"/> # a prophetic statement in nineteen-eleven <pause dur="0.7"/> which said that <reading>the director <pause dur="0.6"/> would eventually become the complete <pause dur="0.6"/> creative artist of the theatre <pause dur="3.1"/> bringing together <pause dur="0.2"/> and mastering <pause dur="0.3"/> all the different expressive idioms of the stage</reading> <pause dur="3.5"/> that was a very early that was a very early comment <pause dur="0.2"/> okay nineteen-eleven <pause dur="0.2"/> the director would be the complete creative artist <pause dur="0.4"/> of the future <pause dur="1.8"/> bringing together and mastering <pause dur="0.9"/> all the different expressive idioms <pause dur="0.6"/> of the stage <pause dur="4.8"/> this is one kind of statement which shows us <pause dur="0.2"/> how important <pause dur="0.2"/> the director is going to become <pause dur="0.3"/> in twentieth century theatre <pause dur="0.3"/> but there were other statements which occurred later on <pause dur="0.4"/> which were also important <pause dur="0.2"/> for example Roland Barthes <pause dur="0.8"/> some of you may have heard of Roland Barthes <pause dur="3.7"/> <kinesic desc="writes on transparency" iterated="y" dur="3"/> Roland Barthes # <pause dur="0.4"/> declared # <pause dur="0.2"/> in # <pause dur="0.9"/> # in the twentieth century that # <pause dur="0.3"/> there was <pause dur="0.5"/> what he called a death of the author <pause dur="1.9"/>

okay so # <pause dur="0.2"/> the death of the author <pause dur="0.2"/> means that the author of a text <pause dur="0.2"/> is not sacrosanct <pause dur="2.3"/> faithfulness to the original <pause dur="0.7"/> is not the primary concern therefore <pause dur="0.5"/> when adapting <pause dur="0.2"/> # works <pause dur="1.2"/> from the past <pause dur="0.3"/> so this is where for example in the Royal Shakespeare Company <pause dur="0.2"/> some modern productions have actually attracted a lot of criticism <pause dur="0.2"/> so for example <pause dur="0.2"/> you get # <pause dur="0.3"/> # Shylock in The Merchant of Venice perhaps riding around on a motorbike <pause dur="0.5"/> or something like that <pause dur="0.3"/> and people say well you know <pause dur="0.2"/> # how dare they do that you know <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> that that's this is totally unfaithful to the Shakespearean original <pause dur="0.5"/> but some people <pause dur="0.2"/> in twentieth century drama will say well that doesn't matter <pause dur="0.2"/> because it's the director's interpretation <pause dur="0.3"/> that actually matters <pause dur="0.7"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> so you find often that # <pause dur="0.2"/> that modern <pause dur="0.2"/> productions of Shakespeare or Racine or Molière <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> are pretty much criticized <pause dur="0.2"/> for being # <pause dur="0.2"/> anachronistic <pause dur="1.0"/> # in other words # applying sort of modern principles <pause dur="0.2"/> # to old texts <pause dur="0.2"/> when those concepts were not actually

available <pause dur="4.5"/> the climate of Paris at the time is also very important <pause dur="1.0"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> directors in particular in Paris <pause dur="0.2"/> were responsible for decentralizing the theatre <pause dur="1.5"/> for moving theatre away from state control <pause dur="0.4"/> towards # <pause dur="0.2"/> private <pause dur="0.3"/> control <pause dur="0.7"/> a little bit like our repertory theatre theatres in this country <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> they receive grants but what they do is very much up to them <pause dur="1.7"/> in Paris a lot of directors saw the theatre <pause dur="0.2"/> almost as a kind of basic human right really <pause dur="1.1"/> # it wasn't just pleasure but everybody had the right to go to the theatre <pause dur="0.5"/> # theatre shouldn't be expensive and prohibitive to the audience <pause dur="0.2"/> but should actually encourage people to attend <pause dur="0.6"/> far from being a luxury <pause dur="0.3"/> the <trunc>theatri</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> the theatre was actually seen as being pretty much central to human existence at the time <pause dur="2.4"/> let's trace briefly some of the important players # in the development of # <pause dur="0.3"/> the director throughout the twentieth century <pause dur="3.2"/> one particular figure who you will actually # see <pause dur="0.2"/> now and again <pause dur="0.2"/> is somebody called Jacques Copeau <pause dur="11.1"/><kinesic desc="writes on transparency" iterated="y" dur="5"/>

okay Jacques Copeau <pause dur="5.0"/> <kinesic desc="writes on transparency" iterated="y" dur="2"/> eighteen-seventy-nine <pause dur="0.2"/> to nineteen-forty-nine <pause dur="6.7"/> <kinesic desc="writes on transparency" iterated="y" dur="2"/> Jacques Copeau # advocated the return <pause dur="0.5"/> of modern drama to the collaborative <pause dur="0.8"/> kind of drama which happened during the Elizabethan period <pause dur="1.0"/> in seventeenth century drama <pause dur="0.2"/> and <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="0.8"/> to an extent in Renaissance drama as well <pause dur="0.2"/> what had happened was that the playwright <pause dur="0.2"/> worked in quite close cooperation with the # <pause dur="0.3"/> the the actors and the actresses <pause dur="0.4"/> so what would happen in that if in that case <pause dur="0.2"/> is that # there would be a kind of collaborative drama which was produced <pause dur="0.4"/> and that he thought # <pause dur="0.2"/> was better <pause dur="0.4"/> than # <pause dur="0.2"/> simply being subservient to the playwright <pause dur="0.2"/> doing everything that the playwright says <pause dur="0.7"/> it's not a matter of that <pause dur="0.2"/> it's a matter of negotiation <pause dur="0.5"/> so # Jacques Copeau was quite a central character in that <pause dur="0.5"/> a more recent player <pause dur="0.2"/> in the director debate <pause dur="0.2"/> is somebody called # <pause dur="0.2"/> Roger Planchon <pause dur="12.1"/> <kinesic desc="writes on transparency" iterated="y" dur="5"/>

Roger Planchon # <pause dur="0.2"/> was # a director of a small theatre # <pause dur="0.2"/> i think just outside Lyon <pause dur="0.5"/> but <pause dur="0.6"/> one interesting thing that Roger Planchon actually did say <pause dur="0.2"/> was that the director <pause dur="0.2"/> was a little bit like a a museum <trunc>crea</trunc> # a museum <pause dur="0.2"/> curator <pause dur="0.6"/> somebody who actually # <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> works with relics from the past <pause dur="0.5"/> but may change those relics <pause dur="0.2"/> so that it's actually # <pause dur="0.2"/> impossible to see at the end <pause dur="0.2"/> who is responsible for them <pause dur="0.7"/> that's quite an interesting comment too <pause dur="1.8"/> Peter Brook <pause dur="0.6"/> another director <pause dur="0.9"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> he directed # in a small Parisian theatre <pause dur="0.2"/> in the nineteen-seventies # <pause dur="0.6"/> what he said was that <pause dur="0.2"/> the job of the director <pause dur="0.5"/> goes beyond <pause dur="0.4"/> seeing himself as the servant of the play text <pause dur="1.2"/> theatre <pause dur="0.2"/> Peter Brook said was an empty space <pause dur="1.1"/> where magical transformations can take place <pause dur="1.7"/> through the interaction <pause dur="0.2"/> between spectator <pause dur="0.2"/> and actor <pause dur="2.1"/> the imaginative stimulus <pause dur="0.6"/> in <pause dur="0.2"/> the play <pause dur="0.2"/> is the important thing <pause dur="0.7"/> and <pause dur="0.2"/> it's the director's responsibility <pause dur="0.5"/> to <pause dur="0.2"/> # provoke and to challenge <pause dur="0.5"/> the the person who's watching the

play <pause dur="3.0"/> decor <pause dur="0.7"/> Peter Brook said was of minimal importance <pause dur="0.4"/> the director had the maximum responsibility <pause dur="0.2"/> to ensure that everybody enjoyed the play and was challenged by it <pause dur="4.5"/> Artaud <pause dur="0.5"/> i'd like to go back to again <pause dur="0.2"/> Artaud says a lot about this # <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> he's # pretty unhappy about Shakespeare <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> generally speaking <pause dur="0.2"/> and rather uncomplimentary about him <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="0.6"/> i personally think Shakespeare is a great playwright <pause dur="0.2"/> so i disagree # <pause dur="0.2"/> perhaps with Artaud on this on this point <pause dur="0.2"/> but some of you may well agree with him <pause dur="0.2"/> and if you'd like to refer to the third quotation <pause dur="0.4"/> this is what he says about Shakespeare <pause dur="4.4"/> <reading>Shakespeare <distinct lang="fr">lui-même</distinct> <pause dur="0.2"/> <distinct lang="fr">est responsable de cette aberration</distinct> <pause dur="0.5"/> <distinct lang="fr">et de cette déchéance</distinct> <pause dur="0.8"/> <distinct lang="fr">de cette idée désintéressée du théâtre</distinct> <pause dur="0.6"/> <distinct lang="fr">qui veut qu'une représentation théâtrale</distinct> <pause dur="0.2"/> <distinct lang="fr">laisse le public intact</distinct> <pause dur="0.4"/> <distinct lang="fr">sans qu'une image lancée</distinct> <pause dur="0.3"/> <distinct lang="fr">provoque son ébranlement</distinct> <pause dur="0.2"/> <distinct lang="fr">dans l'organisme</distinct> <pause dur="0.4"/> <distinct lang="fr">pose sur lui une empreinte</distinct> <pause dur="0.2"/> <distinct lang="fr">qui ne s'effacera plus</distinct></reading> <pause dur="1.1"/> Shakespeare <pause dur="0.2"/> is responsible for aberration <pause dur="0.4"/> in

the theatre <pause dur="1.1"/> this <pause dur="0.2"/> idea of a disinterested theatre <pause dur="0.8"/> which <pause dur="0.3"/> makes theatrical representation <pause dur="0.9"/> leave <pause dur="0.7"/> the public cold <pause dur="0.6"/> okay <distinct lang="fr">laisse le public intact</distinct> <pause dur="0.2"/> leave the public cold <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> without <pause dur="0.4"/> # images <pause dur="0.7"/> which actually sort of shatter the insides of the organism <pause dur="0.9"/> so the problem really # <pause dur="0.2"/> is that # <pause dur="0.2"/> Shakespeare <pause dur="0.2"/> # doesn't really # stimulate or challenge the <trunc>playwr</trunc> # the <pause dur="0.3"/> the <pause dur="0.2"/> the watcher of the play <pause dur="0.2"/> # in the way in which # <pause dur="0.3"/> # he should # contends Artaud <pause dur="7.9"/> in the second part of that quotation # <pause dur="0.2"/> we see as follows <reading><distinct lang="fr">la poésie écrite</distinct> <pause dur="0.4"/> <distinct lang="fr">vaut une fois</distinct> <pause dur="0.3"/> <distinct lang="fr">et ensuite qu'on la détruise</distinct> </reading><pause dur="0.4"/> written poetry <pause dur="0.2"/> is okay once <pause dur="0.5"/> but then we've got to destroy it <pause dur="1.9"/> <reading><distinct lang="fr">que les poètes morts</distinct> <pause dur="0.2"/> <distinct lang="fr">laissent la place aux autres</distinct></reading> <pause dur="1.2"/> may dead poets <pause dur="0.2"/> leave place for others <pause dur="0.3"/> to come in their place <pause dur="1.1"/> okay <distinct lang="fr">que les poètes morts laissent la place aux autres</distinct> <pause dur="5.4"/> Artaud in particular <pause dur="0.2"/> criticized playwrights like Racine <pause dur="0.2"/> for # over-psychological <pause dur="0.2"/> interpretation <pause dur="2.4"/> you've got to shatter the spectator's expectations <pause dur="1.2"/> don't just play don't just give

the spectator what he or she wants <pause dur="0.5"/> but challenge the spectator <pause dur="0.2"/> give them what's good for them <pause dur="0.6"/> rather than what they actually want <pause dur="0.3"/> this is actually Artaud's <pause dur="0.2"/> contention here <pause dur="14.6"/> i hope you're all still awake <pause dur="1.8"/> my final <pause dur="0.4"/> <trunc>m</trunc> my final point # this morning <pause dur="0.2"/> concerns character <pause dur="0.2"/> and actor <pause dur="1.5"/> i'm not going to say very much about this <pause dur="0.2"/> but there are <trunc>s</trunc> there are some things here which i think do merit # <pause dur="0.2"/> consideration <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> as we're sort of moving into studying plays <pause dur="2.1"/> characters and actors <pause dur="0.2"/> are actually # mentioned in # Aristotle's Poetics <pause dur="1.8"/> for Aristotle <pause dur="0.3"/> character is a kind of reality <pause dur="2.4"/> characters exist in their own right <pause dur="2.1"/> because # Aristotle doesn't particularly mention <pause dur="0.2"/> actors or actresses who play those characters <pause dur="1.5"/> so the character if you like is a kind of abstract concept <pause dur="2.2"/> what <trunc>a</trunc> what Aristotle says in his Poetics <pause dur="0.2"/> is that characters should be morally good <pause dur="3.3"/> suitable <pause dur="1.7"/> and <pause dur="0.3"/> most importantly <pause dur="0.2"/> lifelike <pause dur="1.7"/> so the key to success when <pause dur="0.2"/> when you're writing a play <pause dur="0.2"/> is that the characters <pause dur="0.2"/> have to seem like real

people <pause dur="0.2"/> in in real life <pause dur="5.3"/> so # this is described as verisimilitude <pause dur="0.7"/> verisimilitude <pause dur="0.8"/> # or <distinct lang="fr">vraisemblance</distinct> <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> in the French classical theatre <pause dur="3.2"/> <kinesic desc="writes on transparency" iterated="y" dur="1"/> it would help if my pen worked <pause dur="1.5"/> <event desc="changes pen" iterated="n"/><kinesic desc="writes on transparency" iterated="y" dur="5"/> <distinct lang="fr">vraisemblance</distinct> <pause dur="2.0"/> that <trunc>w</trunc> that you could <trunc>y</trunc> <pause dur="0.6"/> that was a joke actually so you were supposed to laugh then <pause dur="1.1"/><vocal desc="laughter" iterated="y" n="ss" dur="1"/> okay <pause dur="0.2"/> not a good actor i'm afraid <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> okay <pause dur="0.2"/> so # <distinct lang="fr">vraisemblance</distinct> # <pause dur="0.2"/> # the sort of verisimilitude <pause dur="1.2"/> however <pause dur="0.3"/> # not # <pause dur="0.3"/> okay i mean <pause dur="0.2"/> so <trunc>thi</trunc> this is the kind of classical view of character <pause dur="0.3"/> but i think it's important to recognize when we're studying Ionesco # Beckett and and <pause dur="0.2"/> and possibly also Sartre <pause dur="0.3"/> although i think Sartre perhaps to a lesser extent <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> character <pause dur="0.4"/> the the word character has been pronounced dead <pause dur="0.7"/> by many writers <pause dur="4.0"/> for example <pause dur="0.2"/> a lot of writers # see characters basically as language <pause dur="1.0"/> rather than <pause dur="0.2"/> as # real flesh and blood individuals <pause dur="0.4"/> like ourselves <pause dur="1.4"/>

what what are characters <pause dur="0.3"/> well basically characters <pause dur="0.2"/> are sort of words on a page <pause dur="0.4"/> perhaps <pause dur="0.4"/> this is one theory of characters <pause dur="0.6"/> i think it's a contentious theory and i think <pause dur="0.2"/> you know we may decide that characters are real characters and they do have real emotions <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> so i'm not particularly pressurizing you to think one way or the other <pause dur="0.2"/> i think the the debate is quite interesting <pause dur="4.2"/> but i think we have to recognize that <pause dur="0.2"/> when we're looking at some plays in the twentieth century <pause dur="0.3"/> # characters are not fully rounded individuals <pause dur="0.7"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> but rather <pause dur="0.2"/> they consist of fragments of language <pause dur="7.2"/> this is again # what Artaud said <pause dur="0.6"/> # in his # Le Théâtre et son Double <pause dur="0.9"/> the fact that # basically # <pause dur="0.2"/> characters <pause dur="0.6"/> # were not really # <pause dur="0.4"/> sort of flesh and blood characters <pause dur="0.6"/> but they they they exterted a kind of power <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> but i think <pause dur="0.2"/> # Artaud wanted to get rid of the psychology <pause dur="0.6"/> which <pause dur="0.2"/> # lay behind the character <pause dur="1.5"/> and he wasn't very keen on the way in which Shakespeare <pause dur="0.4"/> Shakespeare's

characters <pause dur="0.2"/> # analysed themselves <pause dur="1.2"/> so when Shakespearean characters are facing a sort of predicament of one sort or another <pause dur="0.2"/> # they will tend to sort of <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> go into a kind of process of self-analysis <pause dur="0.2"/> whereby they they explore the whole area of <pause dur="0.2"/> of their of their conscious you know <pause dur="0.2"/> # to be or not to be <pause dur="0.5"/> # it's that kind of thing you know <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> you know <pause dur="0.2"/> but i think Artaud said that this was kind of unnecessary in the theatre <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> we don't want this kind of <pause dur="0.2"/> sort of # thought and this kind of complexity <pause dur="0.2"/> let's just get back down to actions again <pause dur="0.9"/> let's let's <pause dur="0.2"/> let's <pause dur="0.2"/> let's judge characters not so much in terms of what they think <pause dur="0.7"/> as what they do <pause dur="1.0"/> in fact i think that's that's a very very big distinction there <pause dur="2.3"/> something <pause dur="0.2"/> something of this kind <pause dur="0.2"/> <trunc>o</trunc> occurs in <pause dur="0.2"/> what we might call the Theatre of of the Absurd <pause dur="1.3"/> # to which # often Ionesco <pause dur="0.4"/> has been attributed <pause dur="0.6"/> although i don't particularly think that the <pause dur="0.3"/> that the <pause dur="0.2"/> the term Theatre of the Absurd is always a very helpful one <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> Theatre of the Absurd <pause dur="0.2"/>

being # <pause dur="0.2"/> a recognition <pause dur="0.3"/> that # life has lost all its meaning <pause dur="1.3"/> # <pause dur="1.9"/> i i i think i experienced this feeling very well when i was <pause dur="0.2"/> when i was writing up my PhD thesis <pause dur="0.9"/> # i felt that sort of life <pause dur="0.2"/> life life had lost all its meaning but <pause dur="0.2"/> # and # <pause dur="0.2"/> sometimes when we're writing assignments we think you know # what's the point of all this # so what you do is to get the whisky bottle out and have another drink don't you <pause dur="0.8"/> <vocal desc="laughter" iterated="y" n="ss" dur="1"/> okay <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="0.6"/> well except i don't like whisky so i <pause dur="0.2"/> i i tend to sort of i have other things but <pause dur="0.2"/> i think # <pause dur="0.2"/> # <vocal desc="laughter" iterated="y" n="ss" dur="2"/> but i think i think the # <pause dur="0.3"/> i i i think the thing i think the Theatre of the Absurd is well how can we how can we go on from this point and life seems to be so ridiculous doesn't it <pause dur="0.4"/> and # so theatre for the <trunc>th</trunc> for the for the absurdist <pause dur="0.2"/> <trunc>f</trunc> for the absurdist writers like Ionesco <pause dur="0.2"/> theatre # <pause dur="0.2"/> is a kind of <pause dur="0.2"/> antitheatre <pause dur="1.7"/> characters behave in totally ridiculous ways <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> at

the beginning of La Cantatrice Chauve <pause dur="0.8"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> which i think is translated <pause dur="0.2"/> # as The Bald Primadonna <pause dur="0.7"/> some of you may know of by by Ionesco at the beginning of that play <pause dur="0.2"/> you have # for example # <pause dur="0.2"/> two characters Mr and Mrs Smith <pause dur="0.8"/> who are sort of discussing things <pause dur="0.2"/> and <pause dur="0.2"/> one of them says right you know it's kind of <pause dur="0.4"/> gives the time <trunc>i</trunc> <trunc>s</trunc> it says like it's ten o'clock in the morning <pause dur="0.5"/> and of course i mean what's the point of saying it because the clock's sort of standing there right in front of you <pause dur="0.2"/> it's the kind of absurd exchange <pause dur="0.2"/> and Ionesco took the the dialogue for La Cantatrice Chauve <pause dur="0.2"/> # from an English textbook <pause dur="0.7"/> when he was learning English <pause dur="0.5"/> he's saying well you know this is a totally sort of absurd textbook <pause dur="0.5"/> how could anybody learn English from this i know i'll write a play about it <pause dur="0.7"/> which is <trunc>act</trunc> <trunc>whi</trunc> <trunc>whi</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> which # was <trunc>w</trunc> was a complete flop actually when it first came out <pause dur="0.3"/> but <pause dur="0.2"/> eventually # became much more popular Les Chaises <pause dur="0.2"/> The Chairs is another one <pause dur="0.2"/> where chairs are sort

of progressively sort of moving towards the end of the stage <pause dur="0.4"/> until the characters fall off the stage <pause dur="0.6"/> wonderful <pause dur="0.4"/> but but these are not really <pause dur="0.7"/> of course this is this really what happens it might be it might be what happens in some lectures i'm slightly out of touch with # <pause dur="0.2"/> with sort of university # lectures at the moment so <pause dur="0.2"/> # this may well be what happens <pause dur="0.2"/> you know people fall off chairs and all sorts of things but <pause dur="0.2"/> # i think basically # <pause dur="0.2"/> # this is pretty absurd stuff isn't it really <pause dur="1.4"/> # <pause dur="2.0"/> another example <pause dur="0.2"/> of Samuel Beckett in a play <pause dur="0.2"/> # Samuel Beckett in a play called # La Dernière Bande which is translated fetchingly as Krapp's Last Tape <pause dur="0.8"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> so # La Dernière Bande <pause dur="0.2"/> # where the character # basically is suffering from # constipation because he's eaten too many bananas <pause dur="0.8"/> <vocal desc="laughter" iterated="y" n="ss" dur="1"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> so # what's this got to do with real life well it's it's just a a kind of escape isn't it it's the characters <pause dur="0.8"/> i mean they're they're we might not

recognize very much of ourselves in characters on the other hand <pause dur="0.3"/> we what we do what we do feel is that <pause dur="0.2"/> the <trunc>charac</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> # the characters do <pause dur="0.4"/> communicate in some way <pause dur="0.4"/> and language <pause dur="0.6"/> is not the way perhaps that we would use language <pause dur="0.4"/> but on the other hand <pause dur="0.2"/> it reveals something about our sort of inner selves doesn't it <pause dur="1.1"/> i would say perhaps just as a kind of # <pause dur="0.2"/> as as a kind of final thing on character <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> we have to look also at the actor <pause dur="0.6"/> or the actress <pause dur="0.2"/> that lies behind the mask <pause dur="2.5"/> because the actor <pause dur="0.4"/> is not particularly subservient to the character now <pause dur="0.7"/> in other words # <pause dur="0.3"/> i mean # <pause dur="0.4"/> one of the one of the big preoccupations of actors in the past has been to say well <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> am i actually playing this part faithfully to the original <pause dur="0.2"/> <trunc>i</trunc> is <trunc>i</trunc> is my is my portrayal of Shylock or Portia in The Merchant of Venice <pause dur="0.2"/> is that how Shakespeare would have wanted me to # <pause dur="0.2"/> to portray it <pause dur="0.2"/> but the answer is well <pause dur="0.2"/> does it really matter <pause dur="0.7"/> i mean does it matter if # <pause dur="0.2"/> you know how we actually perform a a role <pause dur="0.4"/> lies # <pause dur="0.2"/> very

faithfully # against the original i mean we can do it in different ways # somebody who actually # <pause dur="0.3"/> wrote a lot on # <pause dur="0.3"/> on on on actors and <pause dur="0.2"/> the theories of acting <pause dur="0.2"/> was somebody called Jean-Louis Barrault <pause dur="2.7"/> Jean-Louis Barrault <pause dur="9.4"/> <kinesic desc="writes on transparency" iterated="y" dur="5"/> and Jean Jean-Louis Barrault did all sorts of interesting things i mean he <trunc>s</trunc> he suggested for example that actors <pause dur="0.6"/> and actresses <pause dur="0.3"/> should # cultivate the art of <pause dur="0.2"/> double breathing <pause dur="0.9"/> so in other words # <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> the characters have to breathe twice <pause dur="1.3"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> once for # <pause dur="0.6"/> once for themselves and once for the character <pause dur="2.3"/> that's a really strange kind of concept to grasp isn't it <pause dur="0.2"/> the idea of double breathing <pause dur="0.3"/> i mean in the smog of sort of central Birmingham <pause dur="0.2"/> i find it i find it difficult to breathe once never mind twice really <pause dur="0.4"/> but i think you know <pause dur="0.2"/> # this kind of whole concept of sort of breathing is <trunc>i</trunc> is pretty <pause dur="0.4"/> pretty <pause dur="0.4"/> pretty central to what Barrault is doing # <pause dur="0.5"/> so <pause dur="0.8"/> language is a kind of bodily movement <pause dur="1.0"/> <trunc>w</trunc> # so characters

have to use their bodies in certain ways and use their gestures <pause dur="0.8"/> # <pause dur="0.7"/> Barrault spoke of an alchemy <pause dur="1.4"/> so alchemy extracting gold from <pause dur="0.3"/> from solid material <pause dur="0.2"/> so <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> Barrault spoke about an alchemy of the theatre <pause dur="1.0"/> # in which the actor or the actress was was in central position <pause dur="2.9"/> Artaud # <pause dur="0.2"/> used to # <pause dur="0.4"/> exploit his his actors in <pause dur="0.3"/> quite strange ways i mean he used to make them scream at the top of their voices <pause dur="0.9"/> and they used to sort of practise sort of shouting <pause dur="1.0"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> and # <pause dur="0.2"/> it all sounded rather sort of strange and and and problematic really <pause dur="0.2"/> # but noises screams and shouts strange sort of # things # these are are obviously very central to to the kind of thing that Barrault is is coming out with <pause dur="1.4"/> i'd like to conclude now <pause dur="5.0"/><kinesic desc="changes transparency" iterated="y" dur="4"/> by hoping that # <pause dur="0.2"/> as a result of the things that i've spoken about this morning <pause dur="0.2"/> the the very # unilinear <pause dur="0.3"/> # structure which i presented with you with at the beginning of the lecture <pause dur="0.2"/> namely author text characters <pause dur="0.2"/> language and audience # <pause dur="0.2"/> i hope you can see that # this is # an ideal <pause dur="0.3"/> but

rather inaccurate picture <pause dur="0.2"/> of what actually goes on in in twentieth century drama <pause dur="0.4"/> Antonin Artaud <pause dur="0.2"/> was a <pause dur="0.3"/> <trunc>w</trunc> was a watershed in this development <pause dur="0.7"/> he's totally disregarded by some critics <pause dur="0.2"/> i think in a book called Modern French Drama by somebody called David Bradby <pause dur="0.5"/> who i have recommended in your # <pause dur="0.2"/> in your your documentation packs <pause dur="0.2"/> i think Artaud gets <pause dur="0.3"/> maybe a couple of pages mention <pause dur="0.5"/> in a whole book about French drama <pause dur="0.8"/> i think that's perhaps # underestimating <pause dur="0.2"/> Artaud's importance <pause dur="0.2"/> i think Artaud's Théâtre et son Double is central <pause dur="0.3"/> to the <trunc>rev</trunc> to the reversal <pause dur="0.4"/> of this particular paradigm which we're actually actually looking at <pause dur="0.4"/> and i think it does sort of repay quite <trunc>c</trunc> quite careful attention <pause dur="4.3"/> but some people considered that Artaud was rather mad <pause dur="0.2"/> and this particular picture will demonstrate his rather <pause dur="0.2"/> # strange appearance certainly <pause dur="6.0"/> <kinesic desc="changes transparency" iterated="y" dur="3"/> so # Artaud near the end of his life <pause dur="0.3"/> Paris nineteen-forty-eight <pause dur="0.3"/> # a rather sort of

peculiar <pause dur="0.2"/> twisted sort of gnarled character <pause dur="0.4"/> he at this by this stage he'd had many electroshock treatments <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> because of his sort of <trunc>in</trunc> his supposed insanity <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> # so he had # he had E-C-T treatment for a number of years and he was he was sort of sent to asylum in a place called Rodez <pause dur="0.4"/> # rather unfortunately <pause dur="0.3"/> # had he not been he might have come up with some more interesting <pause dur="0.3"/> things <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="3.7"/> <kinesic desc="changes transparency" iterated="y" dur="5"/> characters # <pause dur="0.3"/> these ones <pause dur="2.6"/> <trunc>the</trunc> these characters come from # a play by Jean Genet called # <pause dur="0.3"/> # Les Paravents <pause dur="1.4"/> okay <pause dur="0.3"/> the only reason i'm showing you these is to show how characters <pause dur="0.4"/> are actually sort of made into almost kind of grotesque <pause dur="0.2"/> sort of high comic figures <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> through <pause dur="0.5"/> what they wear <pause dur="0.3"/> so you can see <distinct lang="fr">le gendarme</distinct> the policeman <pause dur="0.7"/> okay # sort of you know puffed out in all his sort of regalia <pause dur="0.2"/> # and # basically i mean it's all # it's all very

sort of high high drama sort of totally contrived really <pause dur="4.5"/> <kinesic desc="changes transparency" iterated="y" dur="6"/> and the the the last one that i'd like to show you is is basically this one it's # <pause dur="0.2"/> it's a picture from # <pause dur="0.7"/> a play by # Paul Claudel called Le Soulier de Satin <pause dur="0.5"/> # Paul Claudel worked in quite close <trunc>col</trunc> # collaboration with Jean-Louis Barrault <pause dur="0.4"/> so it actually shows you you know the the dynamism <pause dur="0.5"/> which # <pause dur="0.2"/> # actresses are # <pause dur="0.2"/> # sort of captured sort of through through Barrault's training so again high drama <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> and # <pause dur="0.2"/> <trunc>r</trunc> revises to an extent the kind of expectations that we have <pause dur="1.6"/> i'm looking forward to speaking to you next week # <pause dur="0.3"/> at which time i shall <trunc>f</trunc> i shall focus <pause dur="0.2"/> probably more more particularly on Beckett and Sartre <pause dur="0.2"/> i have tried to pack quite a lot into that lecture <pause dur="0.4"/> i hope you don't mind <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> and # <pause dur="1.2"/> possibly next week i'll leave a little bit more time for questions so we can deal with anything that might have come up in these <pause dur="0.2"/> in these lectures <pause dur="0.2"/> thank you very much for your attention